Just like liars think everyone else is lying to them, bad faith posters think everyone else is posting in bad faith. Sure, if we did a poll about who is posting in bad faith, it would obviously align by “teams” ~ those posting in bad faith, and those who are not. Let’s give it a spin…
0 voters
How about the one from 2 hours ago where he implies that anyone in this thread thinks people should needlessly die from pandemics?
Exactly. You’ve accused me at least 3 times itt of trolling and bad faith, and you’ve done the same in other threads because you don’t like my left-liberal politics. Meanwhile you’ve repeatedly defended Sabo from accusations of bad faith. Despite him writing post after post about how we’re all filthy capitalists who want to see people starve and homeless children die.
What % of randomly selected posts by Sabo itt would you say an objective observer would classify as being a “good faith discussion”? 10%? 5%? 1%?
Maybe this is your problem. A status-quo isn’t something you “interpret”, it’s something you “examine”.
For example: If I didn’t know how much cash I had in my wallet, I wouldn’t need an interpreter. Instead, I’d just open my wallet up and examine the bills.
I hope this helps.
I thought Sabo was a liberal?
Man cuzz, why you dissin on me.
But anyways, let’s get back to this bizarre fixation the liberals have with the term status-quo. As I’ve mentioned, it doesn’t matter who is delivering the message. What should be obvious, but perhaps is not to all, is that the content of the message doesn’t matter either. The form of the message, and only the form of the message, is what triggers the liberals.
Cliffs: Messages of the form {Y: “I’m for X, you’re for __”} trigger the liberals for all X, and for all Y.
And… there is a very particular reason why it triggers them. I’ve already given one hint: nutrients. I’ll give a second hint in the form of a scramble: aabdfhit.
Maybe it would help if you actually read the thread. I said “are”, not “should”. If you weren’t genuinely confused, you just did a textbook “strawman”.
I guess I don’t know what you mean when you say “liberal”.
I’ve never declared Sabo free of bad faith and I don’t feel the slightest obligation to be following every exchange of insults itt. But, I did look back on this for your sake here because, like I said, I’m trying to be a little nicer to you on account of your age.
Mostly this was part of a string of insults, not anything like substantial attempts at making points, so I don’t think it’s the same. But…Sabo does seem to lump you in the category of Mr. Econ SmartyPants and suggest that Mr. Econ SmartyPants thinks people should needlessly die - presumably by going back to work during the pandemic. Sabo has certainly seen enough posts on this forum to know that a lot of people he’d call (satirize) Mr. Econ SmartyPants do not want people generally to go back to work. Does a post have to at least have some semblance of presenting itself as serious to count as bad faith? Probably, but with Sabo it’s hard to tell. So, ok, I think Sabo may have made a bad faith implication that you want people to go back to work and risk dying in the pandemic.
Jesus this was silly and pointless.
Look, I’m not going to get into this at the detail of what constitutes good or bad faith. Sabo is difficult. That’s obvious. He plays games. He’s insulting. But, I don’t think he’s mean-spirited about it and I still like him. He’s quite different. You on the other hand are quite ordinary. That’s an insult, sure, but I’m ridiculously ordinary myself. If you want to get past the trolling and talk to Sabo, you’re going to have to make some effort and accommodation.
If I thought that he was worthless, I wouldn’t be in this thread. I almost never engage with the Sushis and the Raras of the world. I like him too and think a lot of his posts especially the parking lot one are fucking hilarious.
I’m obviously not going to respond to a bunch of lawnmower and bird memes with the utmost earnestness nor should you expect me to.
And I said “imply.”
Liberals are peeps who feel there is a balance of REIT profits -vs- violence and cruel gratuitous homelessness inflicted upon renting folk. They’re like Goldilocks: this one is just a little too violent, this is has a little less violence than they’d like, this one has just the right amount of violence. Profits >>>> peeps 4lyfe !!!1!
Even though they are about 50% renting folk themselves… and even if they don’t own any REIT stock at all.
Who are the conservatives?
I didn’t imply anything. Once again, it’d help if you read the thread.
They are the peeps who don’t feel there’s a balance at all. To them, only profits matter.
I don’t have to read that far because you amazingly just did it again right after I posted.
Did what? Use your words.
Again, no liberal here believes this.
Once again, it would help if you read the thread. There’s a poll above where they were doing just that.
I didn’t see, was that one of your many “good faith” polls?